The reason DEI policies exist is that without them white male bosses were just blindly hiring white males and not considering anybody else because of their racism and sexism (sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious). That meant pilots who weren't as good, musicians who weren't as good, bankers who weren't as good, etc. Aside from this being a guaranteed jobs program for white makes, and a roadblock for everyone else, it also led to problems because when everybody came from the same background, they all had the same kinds of blind spots.

So, DEI policies came along to try to make sure that companies were actually hiring the best people, and not missing out because of entrenched racism and sexism. So, instead of having a concert violinist hand her resume to a committee and then perform for them on stage, the person performing on stage performs behind a screen and uses a number so their age, name, gender, and connections aren't a factor, just the way they play.

So really, when you see yet another white male airline pilot who looks like he's former air force, you should be saying to yourself "I sure hope this airline has a DEI policy, and they didn't just hire yet another guy who was drinking buddies with one of their pilots when they were both in the air force together."

[+] Cruel@programming.dev -14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

That's part of DEI, and conveniently not the parts that Kirk, or most conservatives, complain about.

The policies complained about are the one that effectively turn race/gender into qualifications. Like affirmative action. Like IBM working to get 50% female representation in their engineering hires. Like Biden in 2020 campaigning on the promise of hiring a black woman to SCOTUS (2 years before he even looked at candidates). Like Google and other tech companies implementing policies to favor non-asian minorities and women. It's a form of "diverse sourcing" while making their actual skills and expertise a lower priority than their race/gender.

If that's not the DEI the left supports, then they're awfully quiet about ridiculing it.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Those "other parts of DEI" are parts that don't actually exist.

Nobody's out there hiring unqualified or underqualified people. When IBM hires engineers they're not hiring women who are underqualified just to get to 50%, they're just hiring very qualified women instead of very qualified men.

Like Biden in 2020 campaigning on the promise of hiring a black woman to SCOTUS

Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified? Or is it that you think that Biden couldn't possibly have known that there were black women who were qualified to be on the supreme court?

Let's not pretend that everybody who gets a seat on the Supreme Court is incredibly qualified. Justice Hugo Black (who was a white man, despite his name) was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1937 and served until 1971. His only experience as a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court was 1 year as a police court judge. Other than that he worked as a personal injury attorney for a few years, then as a country prosecutor for a short time before joining the army in WWI, and then he was elected to the US senate.

Biden undoubtedly knew that there were plenty of black women who were qualified to be Supreme Court justices, but who simply had never been given the chance because of racism and sexism. The woman he ended up choosing had clerked for 3 judges for 3 years (including 1 supreme court justice), had had a stellar career as a lawyer for 10 years, was vice chair of the US Sentencing Commission for 4 years, then a district court judge for 8 years, then another year on the US Court of Appeals before she joined the Supreme Court.

Like Google and other tech companies implementing policies to favor non-asian minorities and women.

The case you link to was someone suing Google claiming that it had such policies. Did he win that lawsuit?

Do you have any actual evidence that tech companies are actually choosing unqualified or underqualified non-white men? Or is it that they're making sure to give a fair chance to people who aren't white men?

[+] Cruel@programming.dev -9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

When IBM hires engineers they’re not hiring women who are underqualified just to get to 50%, they’re just hiring very qualified women instead of very qualified men.

Only 20% of graduates in engineering are women. They're picking from a smaller pool, yet I'm supposed to think they won't be underqualified? That's not reasonable.

Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified?

You seems to be viewing qualifications as a binary instead of a spectrum. When I look for an attorney, I'm not just looking for someone who passed the bar, even if they technically "qualify" as an attorney. I want to scrutinize their qualification much more than that.

She's not a terrible judge, necessarily, but not great either. There have been worse selections in the past, but I don't think that makes the decision acceptable to hire based on gender and race. Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone's race does not represent that constituents of that race.

I don't think Biden already knew qualified judges that were black women for SCOTUS, imo. It was just politics. Trump did the same when he picked a woman strictly because he was replacing another woman. I'll admit that SCOTUS, along with a president's cabinet, are often not chosen based on particular expertise or skill. I personally don't like this 🤷. Though I gues this can work fine if they have a skilled team while they strictly lead.

Do you have any actual evidence that tech companies are actually choosing unqualified or underqualified non-white men?

Only anecdotal. They're having similar problems as universities, where they have "too many" asians and want to take measure to pick other races. The problem is that they're actually not admitting asians to universities and hiring asians in tech because of their race. So to even the ratio, they would have to pick people based on race.

I suspect tech companies really avoid hiring underqualified people, which is why they maintain high asian representation even while publicly acting like they're working to be more diverse. The lawsuit could be related to that public "policy". I work in tech and personally have seen positions made specifically to get quotas, usually in non-tech positions. My company has tons of women in non-tech positions like quality assurance, HR, marketing to even out the lack of women engineers and programmers. Or maybe they just know about the gender wage gap and they're trying to save money lol.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Only 20% of graduates in engineering are women.

Yeah, I wonder why that is. Could it be that getting hired and promoted is much harder so a lot of women don't bother? I wonder how you could fix that...

They're picking from a smaller pool

Yes, good thing they're IBM and can can pick the highly qualified women from that smaller pool.

I'm supposed to think they won't be underqualified?

You're clearly a heavily biased individual, so who knows what you're going to believe.

When I look for an attorney, I'm not just looking for someone who passed the bar

Let's be real, when you're looking for an attorney, the most important thing for you is how much they charge.

She's not a terrible judge, necessarily, but not great either.

Oh really, care to provide any evidence of that? I assume you're an extremely qualified lawyer? Maybe a professor of law?

Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone's race does not represent that constituents of that race.

If you want to talk about someone who is incredibly unqualified, he's your guy.

I don't think Biden already knew qualified judges that were black women for SCOTUS

You don't think a man who was a senator for 22 years and voted on the confirmation of 11 Supreme Court justices, and who served as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee for 8 years where he personally led the confirmation hearings of 7 of them was aware that there was a pool of qualified black women who would make good Supreme Court justices? Maybe you better think about that a little harder...

Trump did the same when he picked a woman strictly because he was replacing another woman.

If you want to argue that Trump had no idea what he was doing, I'm not going to dispute that.

Only anecdotal.

So no.

I suspect tech companies really avoid hiring underqualified people

Well there you go. There's no problem, and no reason to get mad at DEI.

The lawsuit could be related to that public "policy".

Ah yes, the lawsuit. What happened in that lawsuit?

I work in tech

No, no, no. You're a professor of law, remember? You have strong opinions on the abilities of Ketanji Brown Jackson. You couldn't just be some shlub who is watching Newsmax and parroting their opinion. C'mon professor, I'm not going to believe you're just a guy who works in tech.

[–] lordkuri@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

"hello? 911? I'd like to report a murder I just witnessed..."

[–] Cruel@programming.dev -4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yeah, I wonder why that is. Could it be that getting hired and promoted is much harder so a lot of women don’t bother? I wonder how you could fix that…

Around 58% of college students are women. Of black grad students, the vast majority of degrees go to women, 71.5% of masters and 65.9% of doctoral/medical. Tech companies are starved for female representation. And you think it's somehow harder for women to make it?

I'm curious why you think men are under represented in college then. I'm sure it's conveniently not because they think they'll have a hard time succeeding and "don't bother."

I’m supposed to think they won’t be underqualified?

You’re clearly a heavily biased individual, so who knows what you’re going to believe.

In what way am I biased? Use statistical probability and logic to answer the question, that's all I'm doing. If I narrow my pool to a smaller subset, then are my chances of getting the most qualified people diminishes. Right?

Yes, good thing they’re IBM and can can pick the highly qualified women from that smaller pool.

You certainly see the problem with this. They're not the only ones doing it, and even if they were, they're still passing up more qualified people, assuming parity in the rates of qualified people in the 20/80% distribution.

Let’s be real, when you’re looking for an attorney, the most important thing for you is how much they charge.

Wrong. Out of the three I've gotten, I look for their specialization to the task I want first. Notice how you completely evaded the question?

Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone’s race does not represent that constituents of that race.

If you want to talk about someone who is incredibly unqualified, he’s your guy.

Oh really, care to provide any evidence of that? I assume you’re an extremely qualified lawyer? Maybe a professor of law? (see how dumb these questions are?)

Only anecdotal.

So no.

Personal testimony is admissible evidence in court, so it's not nothing. Just not useful evidence for this discussion.

Ah yes, the lawsuit. What happened in that lawsuit?

The lawsuit was stayed pending binding arbitration proceedings, meaning they settled privately out of court. I think the employment contract he had forced him into private arbitration.

[–] NotForYourStereo@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It's really cute how you cite a suit that never went anywhere, and then fail to acknowledge, either through ignorance, or in your case just sheer stupidity, the more likely reason for that particular strategy for hiring...

It's because they want to pay them less. Because they still favor white people. And that was actually proven in court.

[–] Cruel@programming.dev -4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

That suit was moved to private arbitration proceeding and settled out of court.

And I joked about hiring women to pay them more in my other comment. It's a joke because that implies that tech companies, publicly disclosing their desperation to hire women, are actually losing hundreds of millions (collectively billions), just to avoid hiring women. I've never met anyone working on tech that hates women that much. It's one of the most liberal fields out there. They bend over backwards to be diverse. It's a struggle because asians are overwhelmingly dominating in terms of qualification.

[–] NotForYourStereo@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Holy shit you're beyond stupid.

Seek help.

[–] NotForYourStereo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Hey dumbfuck.

Respond to my point about your idiotic citation.